In recent days, the issue of illegal immigration has seriously heated
up both in the corridors of Washington, DC and on the streets of Los
Angeles and New York. It seems that almost everybody has an agenda.

President Bush wants Congress to approve a "guest worker" program which
some say is really an amnesty program. The latter is likely the reason
behind the fact that his 2004 proposal is still not approved by
Congress. The president says our economy depends on the work done by
illegal immigrants, so we may as well legalize their presence here and
know who and where they are. He also indicated during his original
announcement of his idea that he thinks legal immigration quotas are
just plain too low.

Senators Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and John McCain (RINO-AZ) have now joined
together to write legislation that echoes some of the President's
ideas. Critics say the bill would offer amnesty to millions of illegal
aliens already in the country. The Senators say it would do no such
thing because illegal aliens would have to pay a fine and apply for
citizenship. In a proposal intended to compete with the Kennedy-McCain
legislation, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) has gone against
a president who is a member of his own party, but with the majority of
Americans with a focus more on border security and much less on amnesty
(a general overview of both proposals is available online).

The House of Representatives has already passed immigration reform
legislation. The House version of reform doesn't include amnesty, and
it takes border security so seriously that it does include a
significant length of fencing along with an increase in the Border
Patrol and heavy fines for those hiring illegal workers. Many in the
House, including strong immigration reform proponent Rep. Tom Tancredo
(R-CO) have criticized both the president's ideas as well as virtually
all plans the Senate is considering. At the very least, no matter what
the Senate does will almost certainly result in an entertaining time
for members of a conference committee assigned to reconcile House and
Senate versions of reform given what one news report calls a "chasm"
between the two plans!

While the Senate argues and the House watches, the President traveled
south of the border for a meeting with Mexican President Vicente Fox (a
representative of the Canadian government was there as well, but a
meeting not focused on immigration matters has become much focused on
immigration matters, meaning no one is focusing on the Canadians at all
at the moment). In one news story from the scene, we're told that
President Bush has assured President Fox that there will be a guest
worker program included in immigration reform. In another, issued on
the same day, the President solemnly says that Congress is in charge of
deciding what to include in its reform package (which it is, but that's
not what the President intimated when he made promises to Fox).

Meanwhile, members of the House are giving speeches to the public,
members of the Senate are giving speeches to each other, and President
Bush is speaking with President Fox as large crowds of illegal
immigrants are marching in some of our bigger cities. Los Angeles
authorities estimate hundreds of thousands marched there; a week later,
massive crowds did the same in New York. Those rallying in Chicago were
apparently loud enough about it that local authorities there have
already announced they won't enforce any new immigration laws there
(although to be fair, the authorities in Chicago don't care about the
Second or Fourth Amendments, so it's not a great surprise they'd also
deny the Constitution).

The protesters don't want immigration reform. If any changes are to be
made at all, they'd appreciate it if immigration restrictions were
substantially loosened instead of tightened . In fact, some don't think
there should be any restrictions at all. Some even suggest that the
rest of us should leave the country to them since, they say, it was
theirs in the first place and it's us who are here illegally.
Meanwhile, most Americans oppose amnesty and some have started to worry
that these marches will get out of hand (widely syndicated columnist
Devvy Kidd has gone so far as to suggest states start gathering up and
training their militiaswhich sounds extreme until you actually read
the entire column containing the suggestion).

Many illegal aliens say they're sneaking across the border to enjoy the
better life that America offers. There are some Americans who buy that
explanation is not only being true (which in many cases it is), but as
legitimizing the crime committed as well (which, if it did, would also
excuse my robbing a bank because if I had more money I'd have a better
lifealso probably true, but still not an excuse). Illegal is
illegal. But there's another complication beyond the mere fact that our
borders remain relatively porous: two-thirds of the children of illegal
aliens were born in the United States. Deporting Mommy isn't going to
endear any authorities to anybody else anywhere, and there's little
politicians are more concerned with than "endearment," especially to
voters.

Even those who favor the most liberal immigration policies (those who
are unsurprisingly typically the most liberal themselves) can't deny
that most Americans aren't keen on amnesty or unfettered immigration.
Perhaps that has something to do with a recent Department of Justice
release that offered up some good-sized numbers on crimes committed by
illegal aliens. Maybe its a study that turns previously "conventional"
wisdom on its head where jobs are concerned by showing the presence of
illegal aliens hurts American workers. But it might also be a growing
antipathy for illegal immigrants who arrive outside the law, and who
then make demands on their chosen country.

Those who are arguing in favor of amnesty as well as larger legal
immigrant quotas like to point out that this country was built on the
backs of immigrants, that without immigrants, the United States would
be far less than it is. They're right. But they're neglecting to
consider something that I suspect is the real reason behind the poll
numbers, and that's the difference between immigrants today and
immigrants of the past.

Not so very long ago, immigrants worked hard to earn passage to
America. When they arrived, they followed all of the proper procedures
to become citizens. Then they worked hard some more. They earn money so
they could buy better lives for their families. They worked to educate
themselves. They worked to learn English. In a nutshell, they wanted to
be Americans so they worked to become Americans. They didn't discard
their own traditions, but they adopted American ones as their own, and
both sides of the equation were the richer for it.

Immigrants today are too often of an entirely different mind set. They
want to enjoy the advantages they can get in the United States, but
they want to remain Mexican (although this is likely true with some of
those of other nationalities, I think it's entirely fair to say that
the vast majority of illegal immigrants are Mexican). They want us to
learn to speak Spanish rather than learning to speak English
themselves. They want to collect welfare benefits. They even want to
carry Mexican flags in marches organized to demand they be allowed to
stay in America. They are in the active and vocal process of destroying
that which they profess they want for themselves.

Of course, there are also some very real crime issues, here. And at a
minimum, there should certainly be some concern for those who openly
flout the lawfrom illegal immigrants and those who help them get
here to those who hire them and facilitate their stay and their
lifestyles. But the bottom line is that larger issue is so large as to
encompass the entirety of the country both within its borders and its
foundations.

If borders are porous, terrorists can get in as easily as other illegal
aliens. If driver's licenses are given to illegal aliens, so is an ID
that permits criminals and terrorists to move freely. If banks offer
mortgages to illegal aliens, what other kind of loans will they provide
and for what purpose will the funds be used? If people will break the
law to get here, and break the law to stay here, how can we pretend
they'll not break other laws up to and including the execution of
terrorist acts? The answer is, quite simply, we can't. And since we
can't, we mustn't offer easy immigration to those who want to come here
nor amnesty for those who've circumvented the law to get here.

There are plenty of immigration reform proposals to choose from. But
the only one I'm willing to support is the one that secures our borders
once and for all; which refuses to reward wrongdoing; and that demands
a little respect for the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The President
has said that having an un welcoming attitude toward immigrants is
un-American. But it's lumping illegal aliens into the same category as
legal aliens that's threatening our national sovereignty and national
security alike, and I'd call that the most un-American of all.

Now available: Eternal Vigilance: The Best of Lady Liberty 2002-2004
Exclusively from ladylibrty.com
Visit today for news, commentary, and a patriotic goodie shoppe.
Make a move toward freedom!
freestatewyoming.org